Com. v. Pritt, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 13 WDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S18045-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MATTHEW THOMAS PRITT : : Appellant : No. 13 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000097-2024

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: June 25, 2025

Appellant, Matthew Pritt, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the McKean County Court of Common Pleas on December 5, 2024.

Appellant’s counsel did not file a motion for leave to withdraw, but filed an

Anders1 Brief in which he raised a challenge to the trial court’s denial of

Appellant’s pre-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal. After review, we

remand with instructions and deny as moot Appellant’s Pro Se Response to

Anders Brief.

In light of our disposition, we need not discuss the facts in detail. Briefly,

Appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of failure to register under Megan’s

Law on May 23, 2024. Appellant filed a timely pre-sentence motion for

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J-S18045-25

judgment of acquittal on October 4, 2024. The trial court denied the same on

November 15, 2024. Appellant was sentenced on December 5, 2024 to five-

and-a-half (5.5) to eleven (11) years’ incarceration. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal on December 31, 2024. Counsel for Appellant filed a 1925(b)

statement on January 17, 2025. On February 26, 2025, this Court entered an

order indicating that the brief for Appellant must be filed by April 7, 2025.

During the pendency of the briefing period, on March 26, 2025, counsel

filed with the trial court a 1925(c)(4) statement of intent to withdraw. Counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders on March 28, 2025, and this appeal followed.

Thereafter, Appellant filed an untimely pro se reply to counsel’s Anders Brief

on May 19, 2025.2

When counsel files an Anders brief, and appellant files a pro se

response, this Court will first determine whether counsel has complied with

the dictates of Anders. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327, 333

(Pa. Super. 2015) (outlining proper procedure where counsel files Anders brief

2 Although titled “Pro Se Response to Ander’s Brief” and construed as a motion by this Court, Appellant’s filing is in the form of a letter. Therein, Appellant acknowledged receipt of counsel’s Anders brief but advised that he did not receive a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Appellant further stated that he does not agree with counsel’s assessment of the claim raised in the Ander’s brief and does not have trial transcripts or records to which to refer in responding. In light of our disposition, we deny Appellant’s motion as moot; should counsel file an advocate’s brief, Appellant may not file a pro se response. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rogers, 645 A.2d 223, 224 (Pa. 1994). Should counsel file a petition to leave for withdraw and an Anders brief, Appellant may file a response accordingly.

-2- J-S18045-25

and appellant files pro se response). If counsel has complied with the dictates

of Anders and Santiago, we will address the issues raised in the Anders

brief and conduct our independent examination of the record as to those

issues. See id. Finally, if we determine those issues to be without merit, we

next examine the appellant’s pro se allegations. See id. As to appellant’s pro

se allegations, when an advocate’s brief has been filed, “[this] Court is limited

to examining only those issues raised and developed in the brief[; we] do not

act as, and are forbidden from acting as, appellant’s counsel.” Id.

Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous

and wishes to withdraw from representation, he must:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention. The determination of whether the appeal is frivolous remains with the court.

Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation

omitted).

Instantly, our review of counsel’s Anders brief reveals that counsel has

filed a brief referring to issues of arguable merit and has furnished a copy of

the brief with an attached letter informing Appellant of his rights. However,

counsel failed to petition the Court for leave to withdraw, the first step in

-3- J-S18045-25

withdrawing from representation. Thus, we find that counsel did not comply

with Anders.

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court and direct counsel,

within ten days of the filing of this memorandum, either to file a petition for

leave to withdraw accompanying his Anders brief, or to file an advocate’s

brief. Should counsel petition to withdraw, we direct him to simultaneously

provide Appellant with notice of the same and inform Appellant of his rights.

Should counsel file an advocate’s brief on behalf of Appellant, the trial court

need not file another 1925(a) opinion, and the Commonwealth need not file

another brief.

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

Appellant’s Pro Se Response to Anders Brief is denied as moot. Panel

jurisdiction retained.

-4-